All Forum Comments
Absolutely amazing Chris ! Good work indeed.
Comment by Frogfish posted on Pentax Q on a 1500mm telescope at 18/11/2012 - 16:37
Hilarious !
Comment by Frogfish posted on your not a photographer at 16/11/2012 - 03:09
dcweather wrote:
There is something odd going on. Can't put my finger on it at the moment. Did a lot of front and back focusing tests and everything seemed fine with all lenses at wide aperture and minimum or near minimum focus distance. But in the field I just can't get my usual results. I'm no novice and all of my upgrades from K-m, K-x, K-R have been a slight improvement. This image is like one I have taken so many times.Just resized from raw and about a 40% crop. This is with the K-30, DA*300, f5.0 and is ISO 400 and 1/2500 sec with SR on!! It was AF spot and the central square gave a solid bleep when on the eye. OK it was handheld but 1/2500 although that seems odd in the Exif, it was sunny but at f5.0 I would have expected a 1/500th ! I could beat this quality with my K-m and 55-300mm. I mean what is in focus?
I just can't think what is causing this. A problem with the new firmware not going in right? A couple of shots out of 30 in superb light were slightly better but the resolution looks down, not up to me.
Or do I just need new glasses??!!
I don't think it's you Dave. We've seen enough of your work to know that you know how to handle your camera and lenses and don't need to be told (however well meaning) the basics of bird photography. Relative to your usual standards this is an atrocious shot TBH and I agree with you there seems to be something else going on here.There is something odd going on. Can't put my finger on it at the moment. Did a lot of front and back focusing tests and everything seemed fine with all lenses at wide aperture and minimum or near minimum focus distance. But in the field I just can't get my usual results. I'm no novice and all of my upgrades from K-m, K-x, K-R have been a slight improvement. This image is like one I have taken so many times.Just resized from raw and about a 40% crop. This is with the K-30, DA*300, f5.0 and is ISO 400 and 1/2500 sec with SR on!! It was AF spot and the central square gave a solid bleep when on the eye. OK it was handheld but 1/2500 although that seems odd in the Exif, it was sunny but at f5.0 I would have expected a 1/500th ! I could beat this quality with my K-m and 55-300mm. I mean what is in focus?
I just can't think what is causing this. A problem with the new firmware not going in right? A couple of shots out of 30 in superb light were slightly better but the resolution looks down, not up to me.
Or do I just need new glasses??!!
1/2500 should freeze just about anything pin-sharp (assuming low ISO and correct focus) though as you say it seems very fast (I'm assuming you were in AV mode and the camera selected that speed) considering that it isn't a bright day this seems well off. Personally I use TAv (with both my K5 & D800) for almost all my bird photography (which is more than 50% of all my work) !
That SS issue aside it could well be a FF/BF issue. Try setting up at a small target at different distances (typical bird distances e.g. 5m, 10m, 15m, 25m) and then try 3 shots each at -5, 0 and +5 at each distance and check the shots on your computer. I initially thought I needed more adjustment than I actually required. Yours could be the other way around.
Comment by Frogfish posted on K-30 disappointment at 15/11/2012 - 04:17
Smeggypants wrote:
They don't remove it Smeggy - it just has a much weaker implementation of it. From what I've read that is the only difference between the two (much like the D800 & D800E). I suppose it really depends on how much work in PP you need to do to get to the same level - I can't say I've seen any difference in sharpness between shots posted by users of D800/D800E/D4 even, over on FM ! Maybe a simple pre-set applied on importation into LR4/A3 may do the trick.Frogfish wrote:
Though there is of course the argument that you don't need to do anything much to the D800E images and don't need expensive software and skills to get you where you want to be.
Moire is another valid though unrelated argument and the weaker AA filter cameras such as the 'S' and 'E' definitely show more in certain subjects.
Like the K-5IIs, the D800E only removes the AA filter though doesn't it? I cant' speak for anyone else, but I use my preferred software, Lightroom for far more than, just a bit of sharpening. McGregNi wrote:
This is the issue that keeps bugging me - there's no response from others so maybe no one knows yet! Could we actually just obtain the same crisp detailing from a 'normal' K5II images by being clever and applying high quality sharpening techniques in software? This would be cheaper if it were true.
There was this same debate with the D800 and D800E. I remember one blog where the writer had brought the D800 images up to par with those of the D800E after post processing. I don't think there is a conclusive agreement on this as a) it may depend on the subject and b) it more than likely depends on the skills and software of the person processing the images.This is the issue that keeps bugging me - there's no response from others so maybe no one knows yet! Could we actually just obtain the same crisp detailing from a 'normal' K5II images by being clever and applying high quality sharpening techniques in software? This would be cheaper if it were true.
Though there is of course the argument that you don't need to do anything much to the D800E images and don't need expensive software and skills to get you where you want to be.
Moire is another valid though unrelated argument and the weaker AA filter cameras such as the 'S' and 'E' definitely show more in certain subjects.
Comment by Frogfish posted on Positive K-5iis review at 15/11/2012 - 02:56
mecrox wrote:
For general use, leaving off the AA filter seems pointless.
It isn't left off - it is just a much weaker implementation, you can't leave it out altogether (same applies to the D800E).For general use, leaving off the AA filter seems pointless.
Comment by Frogfish posted on Positive K-5iis review at 13/11/2012 - 16:19
Not sure if the 18-135 is budget but it seems to suit your needs to a T (wide, long, dust-proof). I'd save up and get that one rather than compromising on a stop-gap.
Comment by Frogfish posted on New member at 13/11/2012 - 09:26
johnriley wrote:
I haven't had any problems with the K-5 in low light. If i can see to manual focus the K-5 can autofocus. The K-5 can be more accurate than me as well in those low light conditions. The K-5 II may well be better again, but that's just a bonus.
I use my K5 with the Sigma 10-20 (variable aperture) for interior shots - if I can see the subject in an unlit dark room (sometimes there is no electricity to the properties) then the K5 can focus on it. Clients are still happy with the results.I haven't had any problems with the K-5 in low light. If i can see to manual focus the K-5 can autofocus. The K-5 can be more accurate than me as well in those low light conditions. The K-5 II may well be better again, but that's just a bonus.
Comment by Frogfish posted on Positive K-5iis review at 13/11/2012 - 09:12
McGregNi wrote:
This is the issue that keeps bugging me - there's no response from others so maybe no one knows yet! Could we actually just obtain the same crisp detailing from a 'normal' K5II images by being clever and applying high quality sharpening techniques in software? This would be cheaper if it were true.
There was this same debate with the D800 and D800E. I remember one blog where the writer had brought the D800 images up to par with those of the D800E after post processing. I don't think there is a conclusive agreement on this as a) it may depend on the subject and b) it more than likely depends on the skills and software of the person processing the images.This is the issue that keeps bugging me - there's no response from others so maybe no one knows yet! Could we actually just obtain the same crisp detailing from a 'normal' K5II images by being clever and applying high quality sharpening techniques in software? This would be cheaper if it were true.
Though there is of course the argument that you don't need to do anything much to the D800E images and don't need expensive software and skills to get you where you want to be.
Moire is another valid though unrelated argument and the weaker AA filter cameras such as the 'S' and 'E' definitely show more in certain subjects.
Comment by Frogfish posted on Positive K-5iis review at 13/11/2012 - 09:04
On the K5 I found the 15 Ltd superb for some things - but not landcapes and the same goes for the Sigma 10-20. It is one of my most used lenses - for house interiors but the distortion is a killer for landscapes and as has been said, UWA lenses 'push' the horizon away making important features indiscernable.
On the K5 a Zeiss 28mm is my main landscape lens and I can usually stitch if need be. However you can't always stitch because moving clouds, vegetation, traffic, water movement or people etc. can sometimes spoil the image. The 28mm lens has the least distortion of any lens though - hence it makes a great landscape lens.
On my Nikon (FF) I use the Zeiss 21mm and Zeiss 35mm, both are superb lenses (and can be found in PK mount) and although the 21mm is heralded as the bees knees I actually prefer the 35mm for most work and it handles landscapes beautifully. The equivalent lens on APS-C would be a 24mm so either the 24mm or the 28mm I mentioned could be perfect.
Oh and WR is over-rated. Virtually all lenses can take a sprinkle if you dry them off later or if you don't want to chance it then you can use a cover or just plastic bags and a rubber band or two - however most often you won't be shooting in the rain because what would the point of a landscape be when you can't see the thing because of the reduced visibility !
On the K5 a Zeiss 28mm is my main landscape lens and I can usually stitch if need be. However you can't always stitch because moving clouds, vegetation, traffic, water movement or people etc. can sometimes spoil the image. The 28mm lens has the least distortion of any lens though - hence it makes a great landscape lens.
On my Nikon (FF) I use the Zeiss 21mm and Zeiss 35mm, both are superb lenses (and can be found in PK mount) and although the 21mm is heralded as the bees knees I actually prefer the 35mm for most work and it handles landscapes beautifully. The equivalent lens on APS-C would be a 24mm so either the 24mm or the 28mm I mentioned could be perfect.
Oh and WR is over-rated. Virtually all lenses can take a sprinkle if you dry them off later or if you don't want to chance it then you can use a cover or just plastic bags and a rubber band or two - however most often you won't be shooting in the rain because what would the point of a landscape be when you can't see the thing because of the reduced visibility !
Comment by Frogfish posted on Landscape Newbie at 11/11/2012 - 15:26
Excellent Shaun ! Congratulations !
Comment by Frogfish posted on album cover deal at 07/11/2012 - 09:36
